Skip to main content

About your Search

20121224
20130101
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
go into effect. those come in gradually and they could come in more gradually if the government officials thought there was going to be a deal and they better hold off. the real uncertainty i think is what the markets will do. we look like a country that isn't in control of its own destiny, because we're acting that way right now. if you're an investor, whether you're in some part of the united states or you're in some other part of the world, do you really want to buy american securities? do you want to invest in a country whose government isn't functioning? i don't think so. we could get a big market reaction, drop in the stock market. that might scare people. >> how quickly do you -- >> but it would also be a bad thing. in itself, it would contribute to the possibility of having another recession. >> how quickly do you think we'll feel tremors from the debt ceiling now that the treasury is beginning to talk about avoiding it. >> i think we're seeing uncertainty about absolutely everything. it's cumulative, it's the debt ceiling, it's the fiscal cliff, it's what taxes are goin
can move forward? >> well, first of all, we have to be able to govern. we have to have an adult conversation, getting people in the room who actually want to solve this problem. and i think it's very important to step back and see the fact that we have already -- there are three parts of this deficit reduction stool. we've already in the past two years passed $1.6 trillion in spending cuts. we've passed over $700 billion in savings in medicare through reforms like cutting back on overpayments to insurance companies. the one piece of this puzzle that we've not been able to get any support for is making sure that the wealthiest among us help solve this problem by being willing to pay a little bit more to be part of the solution. so we have sent a bill to the house back in july, bipartisan bill that says what -- everybody says they don't want middle-class families to have their taxes go up, well, fine. why don't we start with something we can agree on, which is that? and just pass that. why doesn't the house just pass that? but as we know, the speaker couldn't even pass his own pla
serve to, "embarrass the administration, destroy the energy of government, and substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junta to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority." good writer, that hamilton. but in recent years, the senate has been remade into a super majority constitution. disturb institution. you need 60 votes to get almost anything done. between 2009 and 2010, we had more filibusters than we had in the '50s, '60s, and '70s combined. and they're not filibusters like we think of them, where the senators go to the floor and debate an issue until they keel over from exhaustion. they're just obstruction. if you watch a filibuster today, it doesn't look like anything. it's the blue screen on c-span, the one with the classical music playing over it. you don't tune in to here an intense minority demand a great debate on the issue of the day. you tune in to hear a string quartet. senator jeff merkley, a democrat from oregon is trying to change that. he's got a proposal to force talking filibusters in the senate
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)